Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Dec 3, 2009 9:20am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Help with copyright

Yes, but only during the term of the copryright. You are correct, however, a translation of a work by a foreign author complicates the matter.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Dec 3, 2009 10:22am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Help with copyright

It's not a translation but an adaption. The original work is in the public domain (published pre-1923), but this is a re-writing of it, an adaption, significantly different from the original.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Dec 3, 2009 4:06pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Help with copyright

So the original work MUST still be in the public domain.

And only the adaptation therefore has a new copyright.

But if the original work, was still in copyright, any unauthorised adaptation would be breach of copyright of the original work.

Which adds up to, an adaptation of a work in the public domain, can only have the same copyright status as the book it was adapted from.

And that is none, the adaptation should be in the public domain from day one.

Copyright applies to a set of ideas put into words, NOT exact words in exact sequence.

But if the original author (not current copyright owner) authorised the adaptation, then the original authors ideas were not, in effect, stolen, and then the adapting author would be entitled to a new copyright in order to ensure adapting author gets reimbursed for their labours.

The above means, that once the original author becomes unable to authorise an adaptation (deceased, etc) that authors ideas expressed in his/her book, "The plot of the book" (not exact words) MUST remain in the public domain.

Meaning the book of expressed ideas can not remain under copyright for ever and ever, by regularly publishing adaptations.

A book publisher, would very likely take advantage of such a situation, if the book was still selling well, and would have in-house adapters, not necessarily authors to adapt the book.

And then, you have legal argument, what is an adaptation, what is a copy, or better worded, what, or how much needs to be changed before a copy becomes an adaptation.

And lawyers continue getting richer, at the expense of the authors and readers.

As for copyright renewals, only the original author should be allowed to do that, or an copyright assignee only during the reasonable life span of the original author. Lets put that at 100 years. If the author dies young, say at 50, then any renewal rights expire 50 years after death. If the author dies at 90, any renewal rights expire 10 years later.

Which applies even if the author first published the book at age 89, as copyright laws, were only intended to protect the original creator of any work of art, rights to reward, for their labours.

Its like an inheritance tax, why should the author's children, for example, live a life of luxury and leisure, from their mother or father's work of art.

Copyright laws were created country by county, when stakes were not so high, now any book has a world wide market automatically, and for example, copyright owners and publishers are taking maximum profit for themselves and their shareholders, when the original creator is long gone.

its the difference between words expressed on paper (ideas) and inventions, (hardware) where a manufacturer invests in a production line, to mass produce that invention.

Think of it as Star Trek replicater technology, the way a book is reproduced, very little energy points needed, as a book is just a collection of ideas put into words but to reproduce an invention, it takes heaps more energy, to create that hardware, copy by copy.

Then forget replicater technology, and see how easy it is to copy a book of ideas, as opposed to manufacturing an invention.

Even the patent system, was originally only set up, to safeguard an inventor's rights to reward for their ideas and was not really to protect an industry of manufacturers. (and publishers with copyrights)except it had to protect the manufacturer but only to ensure that the inventor still got his just reward during his life time.

#The above is not based on actual law, as I dont know actual law, its just what I believe it should be, based on fair play and logic, and near the end, I list possible pitfalls with current copyright law.


This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-03 23:53:45

This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-04 00:06:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Dec 3, 2009 3:59pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Help with copyright

I just though, protecting ideas put into words, using copyright, badly affects other people's rights to have similar ideas, slightly adapted.

Take it too far, means current new books are always at risk of breaching some other copyright, its not as if untold monkeys and typewriters are producing untold best sellers and no junk.

There is only a finite number, of combinations of ideas in words, that make sense.

In effect, above, I have shown current copyright laws are outdated, because today, technology makes it so easy for anybody and everybody to write a book, so many books therefore, a high number must be unintended "adaptations" of ideas in a book, that the author might have read years ago.

Its like years ago, when the USA Patent Office declared a crisis, it no longer had the ability to go back thru all its records, to check if a patent application was an unique idea or had been patented before, or even, if the idea had been in the public domain for longer than a year.

I should have been a lawyer, they make heaps of money, arguing copyright breaches under obsolete outdated laws, in courts of civil law.

I suppose that means judges and juries must suffer nervous breakdowns from overload of discussion of every comma and period, in the law books.


This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-12-03 23:59:17